ALASKA
Case Name:
In re Barbara W. Williams and Bruce W. Williams, 2013 WL 1089262 (Bkrtcy.D.Alaska)
Case Summary:
On March 13, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Alaska granted a creditor's motion seeking relief from the automatic stay nunc pro tunc.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
In an interesting set of facts, the Bankruptcy Court ordered the automatic stay was not in effect during a gap period between dismissal of a Chapter 13 case and its reinstatement of the case pursuant to a motion of reconsideration which the Court granted. The debtors initially filed a Chapter 7 petition; however, proceeding pro se, the debtors voluntarily converted the case to a Chapter 13. Unfortunately, the debtors failed to timely file a plan and means test, and eventually, after multiple extensions to file a plan and means test, the Court dismissed the case. Creditor continued with the rescheduled foreclosure and after the case was dismissed proceeded with the non judicial foreclosure. Approximately two weeks later the Court granted the debtors motion for reconsideration and reinstated the case. The debtors ultimately argued that on equity grounds the foreclosure should be vacated. However, because the debtors had received sufficient notice for due process reasons, the Court determined the automatic stay indeed terminated upon dismissal and although the case was reinstated, they stay could not retroactively apply to this gap period.
Case Name:
In re John A. Shaubach and Sarha Shaubach, 2013 WL 950241 (Bkrtcy.D.Alaska)
Case Summary:
On March 8, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Alaska denied the debtor's motion for partial summary to strip down creditor's first deed of trust under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2).
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
Section 1322(b)(2) provides that a Chapter 13 plan may “modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured by real property that is the debtor's principal residence . . ..” Here, the debtors argued that because their Deed of Trust had some limiting language regarding residency requirements, they had the ability to strip down the creditor's lien. Because the debtors never moved out and continued to use the residence as their principal residence § 1322(b)(2) precluded this action. Interestingly enough, as a practitioner, it may be advisable to review this case and its facts and if the peg fits, advise the debtors to move out of their residence.
Case Name:
In re Denali Family Services, 2013 WL 1755481 (Bkrtcy.D.Alaska)
Case Summary:
On April 24, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Alaska granted the debtor-in-possession's motion asserting the appointment of a patient care ombudsmen pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 333(a)(1) was unnecessary.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points for the bankruptcy practitioner.
Case Name:
In re David B. Eimers and Kelli L. Eimers, 2013 WL 1739645 (Bkrtcy.D.Alaska)
Case Summary:
On April 23, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Alaska denied debtor's motion for entry of default without prejudice for failure to properly serve a creditor pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(h).
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points for the bankruptcy practitioner.
ARIZONA
Case Name:
In re Marshall L. Rader and Barbara J. Rader, 2013 WL 1176069 (9th Cir.BAP) (Ariz.))
Case Summary:
On March 8, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District Court of Arizona, and held an Arizona statute that required the filing of an action to collect on a deficiency within 90 days of the non judicial foreclosure was in conflict and, therefore, preempted by bankruptcy law.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
In a well reasoned opinion, the Panel found that the automatic stay and the discharge injunction preempted the Arizona statute, as it was impossible for the creditors to comply with Arizona's statutory requirement without violating the stay or the injunction; and it also was preempted because requiring the creditors to pursue a separate deficiency action would have been contrary to the Bankruptcy Code's orderly, efficient, and comprehensive claims administration process and the Code's framework for determining the validity and secured status of claims.
Case Name:
In re Rizalina A. Morris, 2013 WL 1187817 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On March 20, 2013, the United State Bankruptcy Court for the District Court of Arizona denied the Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claimed exemption of both her and her estranged husband's interest in an automobile while still allowing the non-filing estranged husband to keep as his sole and separate property another automobile.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points for the Bankruptcy practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Frank Matthew Hogle and Charlene Anne Hogle, 2013 WL 1001652 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On March 13, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment determining that material misrepresentations were made in connection with promoting investments in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1991; and, therefore, several of plaintiff's claims were deemed non dischargeable.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points for the bankruptcy practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Mortgages Ltd., 2013 WL 1003450 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On March 12, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona denied plaintiff's motion to remand.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner
In another well-written and well-reasoned opinion, the Honorable Randolph Haines addressed the close nexus test for post confirmation related to jurisdiction. Here, the plaintiff's after having litigated throughout the Bankruptcy and to the District Court, and essentially losing at every turn, filed state court causes of action, which really stemmed from their original problems under the Plan. The Court found that the plaintiff's complaint concerned the interpretation, implementation, consummation, execution and administration of the confirmed plan and satisfied the close nexus test for related to jurisdiction and therefore denied plaintiff's motion to remand.
Case Name
In re Adrian Garcia, 2013 WL 829188 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On March 6, 2013 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona sustained the trustee's objection to the debtor's exemption in a 2010 Volkswagen Toureg.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
The Trustee objected to the exemption because he intended to utilize his Trustee's avoidance powers to void the lien on the vehicle, recover the vehicle as property of the estate and utilize any resulting sale proceeds as property of the estate. The Debtor attempted to assert that the lien had not been properly perfected and, therefore, no lien to avoid and allow the Trustee to pull the property back into the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 551. The Court held that although the lien was unperfected and not valid against the creditors of the owner, it did not render the lien wholly invalid and the trustee could pursue his action to avoid the lien.
Case Name:
In re Strata Title, LLC, 2013 WL 1773619 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On April 25, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District Court of Arizona denied a motion seeking declaratory relief brought by members of an LLC affiliated with the Debtor.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
From what appears to be the Honorable Collins's first written opinion since taking the bench, it is a good read that should provide some insight on how Judge Collins may handle complex issues. Here, the Court was asked to determine whether an operating agreement was an executory contract, whether the purchase option within the operating agreement was enforceable and finally, whether the Debtor's membership interests could be forcibly purchased absent an order lifting the stay. In a factual and legally sound opinion, the Judge denied the member's motion.
Case Name:
In re Jeffrey Albert Kolb and Heidi Elaine Kolb, 2013 WL 1759426 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On April 24, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona granted debtor's motion for reconsideration determining that the debtor's spouse was an “innocent spouse” and, therefore, discharge as to the debtor's spouse was appropriate under 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(3), and that plaintiff's 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(a), (4), and (6) claim failed for lack of evidence.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
In a brief and accurately drafted opinion, the Honorable Hollowell gets to the point. United State Supreme Court please take note.
Case Name:
In re Anthony Tarantola, 2013 WL 1550526 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On April 11, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its findings that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was a holder of a promissory note, entitled to enforce the promissory note according to the terms of the Pool Servicing Agreement and the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement; however the Court also found that the American Home Mortgage Service, Inc. did not have standing to file the proof of claim on behalf of Deutsche Bank.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
In a stinging opinion regarding conduct of counsel, this action arises mostly from issues stemming from the offspring of In re Veal, the Honorable Hollowell strikes again. A must read and a good reminder to know your judge.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case Name:
In re Jose Luis Andreu, 2013 WL 822165 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
Case Summary:
On March 5, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California partially granted creditor's motion to lift the stay.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest for the bankruptcy practitioner.
Case Name
In re Cirilo E. Cruz and Juana Cruz, 2013 WL 1805603 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
Case Summary:
On April 26, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California issued its memorandum decision asking the parties to file supplemental briefings on whether the Court should abstain from hearing the case.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
In a well written opinion addressing complex jurisdictional and jurisprudential limitations of the Bankruptcy Court relating to the interpretation of state statutes and state case law and how they apply to deeds of trust and mortgages where errors in recording may invalidate a trustee's sale, the Honorable Mann expresses her frustration with the California Intermediate Courts as well as the California Supreme Court for what amounts to lack of action and leadership by the Supreme Court and the failure of the intermediate courts to apply the law correctly.
Case Name:
In re Samuel S. Solorzano, Jr., 2013 WL 1701749 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
Case Summary:
On April 12, 2013 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California denied Debtor's ex parte motion for turnover of property.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points for the bankruptcy practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Carol Karlovich, 2013 WL 1343622 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
Case Summary:
On April 2, 2013 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California denied creditor's motion for approval of attorney fees related to its motion to compel and as prevailing party.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
Because there was no statutory authority authorizing attorney's fees and no recognized exception such as bad faith, common benefit, or the vindication of statutory rights of all citizens, the Court must adhere to the constraints recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. The Wilderness Society.
IDAHO
Case Name:
In re Daniel Coy Burch and Shawnda Raye Burch, 2013 WL 951707 (Bkrtcy.D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On March 11, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho sustained the trustee's objection to a creditor's proof of claim.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
The creditor had filed a proof of claim for a business debt for which that business was in the process of winding up, but not in bankruptcy. Because the debt owed the creditor was from the business entity, and not by the individual debtors in bankruptcy, the motion was sustained.
Case Name:
In re Wayne N. Beckley and Wendy M. Beckley, 2013 WL 865541 (D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On March 7, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho denied Defendant's motion to amend or alter a judgment.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points for the bankruptcy practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Danny W. Aden and Rozell J. Aden, 2013 WL 1789725 (D.Idaho)
Case Summary
On April 26, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho denied in part, found moot in part, and denied without prejudice in part a motion to approve a compromise of controversy and to withdraw the reference.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points for the bankruptcy practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Allen L. Wisdom, 2013 WL 1693215 (D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On April 18, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's Order approving the Chapter 7 Trustee's Final Report.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
Debtor had objected to the final report arguing the Trustee wrongfully liquidated five of his life insurance policies and committed fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. Unfortunately, for the Debtor, he only had claimed the cash surrender value of the policy under Idaho's statutory code and not the whole policy. As to the other claims, clearly, the Court affirmed as a trustee has no fiduciary duty to the debtor.
Case Name:
In re Old Cutters, Inc., 2013 WL 1686676 (D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On April 18, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy court for the District of Idaho granted Plaintiff, Old Cutters, Inc.'s motion for attorneys' fees and costs; however, the Court denied Plaintiff, Mountain West Bank's motion for attorneys fees' as Mountain West was not party to a commercial transaction with the Defendant, the City of Hailey, for purposes of an award of attorneys fees under Idaho's Statutory Code.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points for the bankruptcy practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Leonard Otto Wallace and Pamela R. Wallace, 2013 WL 1681780 (D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On April 17, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho denied the Trustee's motion for default judgment on fraudulent transfer claims for failure to plead a claim that entitled him to relief; however, the Court granted the Trustee's motion for default on his claim for an unauthorized post petition transfer claim and on a claim for declaratory judgment revoking certain trusts of the debtor.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points for the bankruptcy practitioner.
Case Name:
In re DBSI, Inc., et al., 2013 WL 1498365 (D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On April 11, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho denied defendant's Rule 12(b)(7) and Rule 12(c) motion and ordered the plaintiff to clarify his jurisdictional position.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
A lengthy and fact intensive analysis but noteworthy for the position the Court takes as to pretrial motions and the deference given to the pleaded facts.
Case Name:
In re Michael Eric Wolfe and Melissa Marie Wolfe, 2013 WL 1410385 (D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On April 8, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho granted the Trustee's motion for turnover of funds in Debtor's checking account on the date of the bankruptcy petition.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
In a cautionary tale for the debtor, be careful when you file that petition. The debtors owed a debt to the IRS. They borrowed money to pay that debt, deposited those funds in their checking account and wrote a check to the IRS. A week later they filed their bankruptcy petition. However, the check, although deposited into the IRS account, had not been debited from the debtor's checking account. The Debtor's indicated in their schedules that their banking account had only .99 cents as of the petition date; however, the bank statement later acquired by the Trustee showed $8300. The Court held, that although harsh, Congress had drawn a bright line for which the debtors failed to adhere.
ALASKA
Case Name:
In re Maria Elena Gamboa NICDAO, 2013 WL 29809 (C.A.9 (Alaska))
Case Summary:
On January 3, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Alaska's judgment dismissing Debtor's second appeal from the bankruptcy court's amended judgment in her Chapter 7 adversary proceeding because there were no additional issues for the district court to review and the district court was precluded from reconsidering previously decided issues.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
ARIZONA
Case Name:
In re James Gray Bennitt, Jr. and Kelley Lea Bennitt, 2013 WL 364327 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 30, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision holding Debtors in civil contempt for failure to comply with a consent order and failure to turnover proceeds to the estate.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Jesus Padilla, 2013 WL 392448 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 30, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision finding that Deutsche Bank's Notice of Election pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1111(b) was filed timely prior to the conclusion of the hearing on approval of the disclosure statement.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
In a rather unusual but not very notable factual circumstance, the Court found the Debtor added for the first time material information to the second amended disclosure statement after Deutsche Bank had made its election; and, therefore, the Court concluded Deutsche Bank's election was made timely.
Case Name:
In re Caron Teresa Fisher, 2013 WL 241024 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 22, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision finding that only a small portion of Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary claim was non-dischargeable.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
Defendant as the attorney in fact for her deceased father and acting as his probate personal representative wrote several checks to herself and other family members in both her capacity as the attorney in fact and at the direction of her father before his death. Because the Plaintiff failed to meet the elements required for a non-dischargeability claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), namely the elements for breach of the fiduciary duty and embezzlement, except as to a small portion of the funds, the Defendant was allowed a majority of her discharge.
Case Name:
In re Manstone Countertops, LLC, 2013 WL 209305 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 17, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision removing Robert M. Cook as attorney for the debtors out-of-possession.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re VAL-MID Associates, L.L.C., 2013 WL 139278 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 9, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision denying confirmation of the Debtor's plan of reorganization because the plan did not have an impaired accepting class.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
The Debtor's plan of reorganization provided that Class 2 secured tax claims would be transferred to the secured creditor with no obligation for the secured creditor to pay the taxes; however, Pima County would still retain its liens as well as its rights and remedies to enforce the liens, and therefore, under Arizona law, Pima County's statutory rights would remain the same and unaltered. The Court noted there is a split of authority on whether a secured tax claim can be impaired. The Court reasoned that it did not need to address this issue because the claims were still unimpaired.
Case Name:
In re Jose Blanco and Ramona Blanco, 2013 WL 140213 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 9, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision finding that the Defendant willfully violated the discharge injunction by pursuing Plaintiffs and insisting upon post-discharge execution of a second reaffirmation agreement and attempting to very aggressively enforce the second post-discharge reaffirmation agreement such that the Plaintiffs were required to retain counsel in order to stop Defendant's unlawful conduct.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
Although evidence was lacking to allow the Court to sufficiently determine allowable damages, the Court directed the Plaintiff to file a detailed statement of allowable damages. It is hoped by this commentator that damages will be allowed to deter this type of conduct because one doubts this is the first time this Defendant has acted in this manner.
Case Name:
In re Everado Quintero-Favela, 2013 WL 74377 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 7, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision granting the Trustee's motion for disgorgement of excess or unreasonable fees paid to Debtor's attorney.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Ruben Villalobos and Kim Villalobos, 2013 WL 74378 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 7, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision granting the Trustee's motion for disgorgement of excess or unreasonable fees paid to Debtor's attorney.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Thomas Fernandez and Jamie Fernandez, 2013 WL 98520 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 7, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision granting the Trustee's motion for disgorgement of excess or unreasonable fees paid to Debtor's attorney.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Michelle Bryanna Perry, 2013 WL 66260 (Bkrtcy.D.Ariz.)
Case Summary:
On January 7, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona issued its Memorandum Decision granting the Trustee's motion for disgorgement of excess or unreasonable fees paid to Debtor's attorney.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case Name:
In re Conrad J. Kuiken, Jr., 2013 WL 203398 (9th Cir. BAP (Cal.))
Case Summary:
On January 4, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California and held that because the Debtor did not maintain a continuous interest in the property subject to a judicial lien from the time the lien fixed until the petition date, the Debtor was not entitled to avoid the lien based on a homestead exemption.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
Addressing a matter of first impression in the circuit, whether under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1), a creditor's judicial lien was avoidable where the Debtor had transferred his interest in real property subject to the judicial lien to an LLC in which he was a member and subsequently reacquired the property from the LLC prior to filing for bankruptcy. The Court held that this transfer meant the Debtor had no interest in the interim and therefore had acquired a different interest, one for which the lien had already affixed when he later reacquired the property and therefore the Debtor did not meet the first prong of 522(f)(1) and was unable to avoid the lien.
Case Name:
In re Vilma Nioko, 2013 WL 298069 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
Case Summary:
On January 22, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California issued its Order sustaining the chapter 13 trustee's objection to confirmation and denying the Debtor's plan of reorganization.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re David M. Anderson, 2013 WL 240748 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
Case Summary:
On January 18, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California issued its Order on motions to estimate claim, for relief from stay, for protective order, and for Rule 2004 exams.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Creative Capital Leasing Group, LLC, 2013 WL 211352 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
Case Summary:
On January 17, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California issued its Order on Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment granting in part and denying in part.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
The Trustee sued Defendants to recover as fraudulent conveyances payments the Debtors had made on various credit card accounts. The Trustee moved for partial summary judgment. The Defendants failed to produce evidence that the Debtor was obligated to make a majority of the payments.
Case Name:
In re Taffy E. Everhart, 2013 WL 176144 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
Case Summary:
On January 16 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California issued its Memorandum Decision overruling the objections of the secured creditor regarding the value of the Debtor's motor home and the feasibility of the plan and directed the Debtor to amend her plan of reorganization in accordance with the Memorandum Decision.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Robert Otis Griffith, 2013 WL 176141 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
Case Summary:
On January 15, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California issued its Order granting the Trustee's Motion to Enter into Short Sale Agreement.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
IDAHO
Case Name:
In re Shannon Ray Robnett, 2013 WL 268640 (Bkrtcy.D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On January 24, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho issued its Memorandum of Decision denying the Trustee's Motion for Approval of Compromise because the motion failed to summarize or explain the compromise or provide any information of substance to the creditors.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Antonio H. Azevedo, 2013 WL 249929 (Bkrtcy.D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On January 22, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho issued its Memorandum of Decision granting the Creditor's application for allowance of an administrative expense.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
A thorough analysis by the Honorable Jim Pappas of transactions occurring in the ordinary course of business for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 364(a), and thus qualifying as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. 503(b) with an in-depth look at both a vertical and horizontal dimensions test under § 364(a).
Case Name:
In re Tyler Justin Ashton, 2013 WL 211243 (Bkrtcy.D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On January 18, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho issued its Memorandum of Decision sustaining the Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of a homestead exemption on a trailer in which he temporarily resides while working out of state, yet maintains a rented residence within Idaho.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Richard W. Hoyle, 2013 WL 210254 (Bkrtcy.D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On January 17, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho issued its Memorandum of Decision granting the United States Trustee's Motion to Convert the Debtor's case to a Chapter 7 and finding that the confirmation of the Debtor's plan is rendered moot by the conversion.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re The Leed Corporation, 2013 WL 124357 (Bkrtcy.D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On January 9, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho issued its Memorandum of Decision granting an attorney's application for interim compensation and denying the sole objection thereto based on a lack of standing.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.
Case Name:
In re Lawrence Darwin McKay, 2013 WL 66263 (Bkrtcy.D.Idaho)
Case Summary:
On January 4, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho issued its Memorandum of Decision granting the Creditor's motion to convert the case to a Chapter 7.
Notable Points to Bankruptcy Practitioner:
No notable points of interest to the Bankruptcy Practitioner.